Is the DM the most important person at the table

[FrogReaver]

That one seems rather easy IMO. If you want to advance the scene you say something like, "You utterly confound the guards with your pranks, leading them on a wild goose chase for hours. The next day..." Sum up and move to the next scene. The DM has that power. The most a player can say is that they're done with the scene and are ready to move on, but it is the DM that makes that call. They can choose to summarize a scene that a player is engaging with to move it along, or introduce new elements to extend the scene beyond the point where the players would have otherwise ended the scene (the BBEG shows up as the player finishes pranking the guards, for example).

Additional ways I could have moved the scene forward are appreciated but kind of miss the point.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, they weren’t. They helped push forward to the next scene, but without you there wouldn’t have been any scenes.

Without that player it would have been a bad game. With that player it was a great game.

No game is better than a bad game right?

 

[prabe]

No game is better than a bad game right?

I keep seeing people say this, and I keep thinking it's not exactly true. Maybe it depends on just how bad the bad game is?

 

[Stoutstien]

I keep seeing people say this, and I keep thinking it's not exactly true. Maybe it depends on just how bad the bad game is?

For some the simple act of playing the game is the reason why they play the game and others are looking for specific things within the game for fulfillment.
an example would be some people play the game for social interaction so the missing element of additional players other than the DM might be lacking.

 

[prabe]

For some the simple act of playing the game is the reason why they play the game and others are looking for specific things within the game for fulfillment.
an example would be some people play the game for social interaction so the missing element of additional players other than the DM might be lacking.

That seems plausible. I'm in at least two groups (as a player) where it's far more the people at the tables than the games themselves that keep me coming back.

 

[Stoutstien]

That seems plausible. I'm in at least two groups (as a player) where it's far more the people at the tables than the games themselves that keep me coming back.

As much as I harp on maintaining a mechanical balance point, pacing, player agency, and game structure they come second by a long shot from the importance of the interpersonal relationships of the players(including GM)
I think it is one of the big factors of why the hobby gotten more popular is that portion.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Additional ways I could have moved the scene forward are appreciated but kind of miss the point.

I also feel as though you've missed my point, which was that you had the authority to advance the scene the entire time, you simply did not exercise it. You may have had good reasons for doing so, but that is quite distinct from lacking the authority. Players don't typically have such authority.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Late to the thread, and I'm going to switch from examining which 'person' is most important at the table to which 'role'.

So, in games that have roles of GM and player, the distribution of authorities and constraints differs on the game. In D&D, the GM has broad authority over almost every aspect of the game and few constraints, while the player has limited authority (general, only over their character in build and action declaration) and many constraints. Play is clearly centered around the GM.

In a Powered by the Apocalypse game, say Blades in the Dark, the GM has much more limited authority, now only over position and effect and scene framing (but constrained by player input) and many more constraints on authority. The players have much more authority and fewer constraints than in D&D. Everyone, though is under tighter constrained in regards to genre and setting than in D&D. Depending on the immediate need in the game, the more important role shifts between player and GM. For instance, when determining the score, the GM has no say, it's all the players (constrained by genre and setting) and the GM must accept the player's input and cannot violate it in scene framing or resolutions. So, here, the roles have shifted and play is less clearly GM centered than in D&D, as authorities alternate.

I don't think it's worthwhile to try to determine who the most important role at the table is, because you must have all roles present to have the game. Further, importance of role can vary greatly by the game, and even by the specific moment in the game.

I think a lot of thought is tied up into what we do in these roles, that are our choices, or are pushed by the game structure, without considering an outside view. It's easy to think that, since you do the prep and make the calls and play D&D that you can conflate you, the person, with the role of GM. The role of GM is pointless without the players -- it's neither more or less important in structure. In the social space, though, the level of work necessary to GM in the traditional D&D style (which you don't really have to do, it's more the traditions and assumptions built up around the game rather than an actual requirement to play) means that there are fewer people willing to do it, and fewer still who do it well, which leads to the assumption that the GM is the most important person. In reality, the GM is just more scarce, not more important. They are more valuable due to their scarcity rather than anything inherent to the role. And, this is borne out by the desire to protect the scarcity of the GM through gatekeeping -- you MUST do these things to be a GM and it's HARD to do well, so therefore there are FEWER people capable of being a GM. But, this is gatekeeping, pure and simple. You do not have to do the many things listed in this thread as 'needed' to GM, as some have noted to strong pushback. You can do it a lot simpler, if you change your assumptions and traditions about what a game looks like, even for stalwarts like D&D.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Late to the thread, and I'm going to switch from examining which 'person' is most important at the table to which 'role'.

So, in games that have roles of GM and player, the distribution of authorities and constraints differs on the game. In D&D, the GM has broad authority over almost every aspect of the game and few constraints, while the player has limited authority (general, only over their character in build and action declaration) and many constraints. Play is clearly centered around the GM.

In a Powered by the Apocalypse game, say Blades in the Dark, the GM has much more limited authority, now only over position and effect and scene framing (but constrained by player input) and many more constraints on authority. The players have much more authority and fewer constraints than in D&D. Everyone, though is under tighter constrained in regards to genre and setting than in D&D. Depending on the immediate need in the game, the more important role shifts between player and GM. For instance, when determining the score, the GM has no say, it's all the players (constrained by genre and setting) and the GM must accept the player's input and cannot violate it in scene framing or resolutions. So, here, the roles have shifted and play is less clearly GM centered than in D&D, as authorities alternate.

I don't think it's worthwhile to try to determine who the most important role at the table is, because you must have all roles present to have the game. Further, importance of role can vary greatly by the game, and even by the specific moment in the game.

I think a lot of thought is tied up into what we do in these roles, that are our choices, or are pushed by the game structure, without considering an outside view. It's easy to think that, since you do the prep and make the calls and play D&D that you can conflate you, the person, with the role of GM. The role of GM is pointless without the players -- it's neither more or less important in structure. In the social space, though, the level of work necessary to GM in the traditional D&D style (which you don't really have to do, it's more the traditions and assumptions built up around the game rather than an actual requirement to play) means that there are fewer people willing to do it, and fewer still who do it well, which leads to the assumption that the GM is the most important person. In reality, the GM is just more scarce, not more important. They are more valuable due to their scarcity rather than anything inherent to the role. And, this is borne out by the desire to protect the scarcity of the GM through gatekeeping -- you MUST do these things to be a GM and it's HARD to do well, so therefore there are FEWER people capable of being a GM. But, this is gatekeeping, pure and simple. You do not have to do the many things listed in this thread as 'needed' to GM, as some have noted to strong pushback. You can do it a lot simpler, if you change your assumptions and traditions about what a game looks like, even for stalwarts like D&D.

In the strictest sense, "important" was arguably not the best term to use for this topic as it is extremely subjective. Important with respect to what? In the sense that everyone's fun is equally important? In the sense of whose authority or responsibility is greatest? Something else?

I disagree with your conclusion, that believing that GMing is hard, necessarily amounts to gatekeeping. Yes, in theory a new GM could use all sorts of shortcuts to lighten their burden. However, in practice, a new GM is the least likely to actually know about such shortcuts.

If you try to dissuade potential GMs from GMing by saying it is hard, that is gatekeeping. Acknowledging that GMing is challenging in a thread, the majority of whose participants are probably already GMs, is not gatekeeping IMO.

 

[Nagol]

In the strictest sense, "important" was arguably not the best term to use for this topic as it is extremely subjective. Important with respect to what? In the sense that everyone's fun is equally important? In the sense of whose authority or responsibility is greatest? Something else?

I disagree with your conclusion, that believing that GMing is hard, necessarily amounts to gatekeeping. Yes, in theory a new GM could use all sorts of shortcuts to lighten their burden. However, in practice, a new GM is the least likely to actually know about such shortcuts.

If you try to dissuade potential GMs from GMing by saying it is hard, that is gatekeeping. Acknowledging that GMing is challenging in a thread, the majority of whose participants are probably already GMs, is not gatekeeping IMO.

Indeed, I think knitting and birdwatching are hard for differing reasons. One cannot claim I am gatekeeping those hobbies as I do not pursue them because they are hard.

I do acknowledge that DMing is also considered hard and understand why others would not wish to pursue it.